 |
| VanDusen Botanical Gardens, 2016 |
Peter Thiel on Donald Trump, CNBC, November 9
Cited
'In retrospect, Thiel nailed the Trump phenomenon: "I think one thing that should be distinguished here is that the media is always taking Trump literally. It never takes him seriously, but it always takes him literally. ...
I think a lot of voters who vote for Trump take Trump seriously but not literally, so when they hear things like the Muslim comment or the wall comment, their question is not, 'Are you going to build a wall like the Great Wall of China?' or, you know, 'How exactly are you going to enforce these tests?' What they hear is we're going to have a saner, more sensible immigration policy."'
End citation
I am more interested in philosophy than politics!
Again, I am Canadian, I have no horse in US politics. I did a test weeks ago, based on policy, on who I should vote for in 2016, I came up largely supporting Libertarian policies, a little Republican and not much Democrat.
One of my closest friends, like me, is a moderate conservative, of the academic, parsing words, philosophical mindset. He has taught at Trinity Western University, as did his Father. When my friend reads and hears the Trump political platform, such as (paraphrased) Trump stating there needs to be a ban on Muslim immigration until things are figured out, it seems to me, my good friend takes this plain literally, as one would take interaction between intellectual to intellectual, academic to academic.
However, in my opinion, President (Elect) Trump and many of his typical American followers are not intellectuals or academics, although they have different types of intelligence, to be clear. President Trump, for example, having significant business intelligence. Because Trump and many of his followers are not intellectuals, in the mainstream media or academics, they often write and speak in non-precise terms.
A statement in regard to a (paraphrased) 'Muslim immigration ban until we figure things out', is more likely meaning (paraphrased) that we will increase security, in particular in regard to immigration, especially from Islamic countries and will increase efforts to ban anyone potentially affiliated with radical Islam.
I reason this approach may lessen personal freedoms in favour of security measures. This is a legitimate concern. I am opposed to a ban on Islamic immigration in a western context, for the sake of freedom of religion, although I am by no means a theological supporter of Islam. Reasonable security measures need to be taken by the State.
It needs to be considered that in regards to fears when platform is stated carelessly, the political checks and balances within the American system, house, senate and courts, and the checks and balances of any western country need to be factored in, against the policies of a political party, seeking power and in power.
I would much prefer politicians to use more precise language in explaining policy to intellectuals and common people of various worldviews and political positions.
The President Trump controversy is a philosophical lesson that persons need to better understand those with different mindsets, worldviews and ways of processing and expressing information.
